[RobFromGa]

I called out these passages specifically in my letter to Linder/Boortz last year. This letter is posted here:

JORGENSON EXPLODES FAIRTAX MYTH (FR Exclusive)

[RobFromGa]

the second edition acknowledges our concerns with the way the FairTax was being mis-represented.

[RobFromGa]

ping

[Always Right]

I thought pigdog said he debunked all this.

[Beagle8U]

"In the second edition, they say our purchasing power will be about the same."

5 dollars is "about" the same as 5 million, hard to prove lier's wrong...lol

The Fairy tax is a joke on anyone stupid enough to vote for it.

If someone makes 200k or more, AND owns a business where they can write everything off, its a good deal.

Homeless persons would make out pretty good also, everyone else takes it in the ash.

[xcamel]

Ping-a-ling!

TANSTAAFT!

(There ain't no such thing as a FairTax)

Double digit taxation for single digit IQ's

*pinglist*

If H.R. 25 was enacted into law tomorrow, and a future Congress followed its language to the letter, would that future Congress have authority to calculate a tax from corporate income as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)? The answer is, YES! Our socialists in Congress would still be able to lay and collect a tax calculated from income just as is now calculated under the Income Tax! This is what the FairTax Con Artists don`t tell you.

Freepmail me to get on or off.

[Dimples]

It seems there is a bit of a shift in the meaning of "embedded taxes" used in this revision of the book. Before this edition, "embedded taxes" referred to that portion of product price owing to income taxation. Now it seems to refer to formerly withheld tax ... even though it's still embedded in price.

The statement

“The prices of consumer goods and services remain essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”

is still a bit of a stretch considering that actual prices will rise by approximately the amount of the new tax ... that, however, is offset (for wage earners) by the elimination of withholding. The tax is still embedded in the price, as are the formerly withheld wages.

At any rate, the revision does indeed seem to back away from some of the more egregious falsehoods.

Now if we could get an honest appraisal of the "revenue neutral" tax rate ...

[groanup]

Attention, attention!!! Rob has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

C'mon Rob. That horse doesn't even have a hide anymore.

[groanup]

ping

[Turbopilot]

In the past few years, I've seen "conservatives" grow nonmilitary discretionary spending faster than most Democrat administrations, oppose border security, propose amnesty by another name for illegal aliens, create a trillion-dollar health care entiitlement program, start a new Cabinet-level executive department to waste billions on anything but profiling fundamental Islamists, and federalize education. Now we have "conservatives" opposing new alternatives to the IRS and progressive unapportioned taxation??

Sigh. Would the last person to support limited constitutional government please turn out the lights?

[Imgr8t]

I don't get it. So there's revisions. So that's grounds to throw the whole idea out?

Or is this just a way for you to pat yourself on the back?

Enlighten me.

[R.W.Ratikal]

The so-called Fair Tax is a diversion. We don't need a fair tax but much much lower taxes. If everyone is being robbed it's no consolation to know that everyone is being robbed in the same way.

Both Linder and Bortz admit that their proposal is "revenue neutral." That means taxpayers will continue to be over-taxed and will continue to be hit with tax increases almost every day the legislators are in session.

Some non-governmental economists have estimated that Americans are over-taxed some 70 percent if measured by Constitutional limits, that is, by what can be justified as legitimate spending by government.

Fair, Schmair. We need LOWER!

[xcamel]

[word]